Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16194)
Facts:
On November 03, 1961, in a case initiated in the Municipal Court of Davao City, plaintiff Vicente Basa sought to recover P885.27 representing wage differential, compensation for overtime work, separation pay, and attorney’s fees allegedly due to him as the former employee of defendant Antonio V. Escano. The municipal court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Davao, where he moved to dismiss on the ground of alleged lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject matter, asserting that the party named in the original complaint was “Eagle Theater,” which was not a juridical person. The Court of First Instance denied the motion and ordered that an amended complaint be filed naming Antonio V. Escano as defendant, based on the allegation that Eagle Theater was a business enterprise engaged in theater business and owned and operated by Escano. After the amended complaint was filed, the Court of First In...Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16194)
Facts:
Vicente Basa filed an action in the Municipal Court of Davao City to recover P885.27 for wage differential, compensation for overtime work, separation pay, and attorney’s fees against Antonio V. Escano, alleging entitlement as a former employee. The original complaint named “Eagle Theater,” which the defendant challenged as not being a juridical person; the Court of First Instance of Davao ordered an amended complaint naming Antonio V. Escano and thereafter rendered judgment for the plaintiff.Escano appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the case without costs on the ground that the cause of action fell within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Basa then filed this appeal by certiorari, insisting that regular courts had jurisdiction because he no longer sought reinstatement.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over Basa’s claims for labor-related benefits where the employee relationship had already ended and reinstatement was not sought.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction of regular courts.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)